[DaveC]

Personally I am totally sick of the lack of proper information. I'm sick of pro car people rubbishing everything and pro walking (whatever the hell they think the alternative is) people spouting their politically motivated green scare-mongery.

It leaves normal people not knowing what the f*** is going on and believing either goverment tax vampires or the buffoons on Top Gear...

the prius is made in Japan and has to be shipped 5000 miles to europe/US, the co2 produced in transportation is equalivent to driving a Mondeo for 20k miles. Can't remember where i read this, think it was in Top gear mag

Good maritime diesels approach 50% efficiency - I think cars are nearer 20% - the above simply cannot be true for a ship carrying several thousand cars. But then again who knows we are all working in the damn dark here and nobody seems to want to use the real figures and would rather tax people based on rhetoric.

These are the figures for 2002:-
Greenhouse gas emissions from the UK transport industry (Million tonnes of CO2 equivalent)

Railways 1.5
Buses and coaches 4.8
Tubesandtrams 0.8
Taxis & minicabs 2.7
Roadfreight 23.4
Transport via pipeline 0.3
Water transport 15.0
Air transport 37.5
Total transport industry 86.0 (12% of total UK emissions)

UK households' vehicles 62.8 (9% of total UK emissions)

Other emission sources 547.6 (79% of total UK emissions)

Total UK emissions 696.5 of which:

Road transport 125.3 (18% of total UK emissions)

From this we can see that our cars equate to 9% of the UKs output - hmm I dont know about you but a taxation system that targets a 9% sector from which a marginal improvement is the best that can be hoped for seems somewhat nonsensical.

According to 2004 figures band F cars accounted for 28% for all cars registered since 2001 (the ones the bands apply to) and (in 2004) a bottom line of figure of 9% of all registered cars.

So the governments latest grand scheme to save the planet is to split a band which applies to 9% of all cars to make a higher taxation band, when that 9% is itself part of the 9% of UK emisions from private vehicles to reduce the UKs CO2 output (which is only 1% of the worlds output) seems rather more inspired by taxing the rich than saving the planet.

Vote for me! I believe I am uniquely placed to have a truely cross party appeal - I'd shoot them all, Lib/Lab/Cons and all the fringe loonies too.

[dazzapb]

excellent post dave, you get my vote! thanks for setting my facts straight, I do try and take the car mags ramblings with a pinch of salt, but i guess but the same token i have to do the same for the green lobby - if not more so

[Hotcoupe]

Dave can you let us know the date of your first constituents surgery, as I'm sure your post will amass a devoted following.

Would you PM me your full details and I will start a petition on the No 10 website.

VOTE DaveC

You know it makes sense

[scotw]

Vote for me! I believe I am uniquely placed to have a truely cross party appeal - I'd shoot them all, Lib/Lab/Cons and all the fringe loonies too.

Hell that gets my vote, a few less politicians on the planet can't be a bad thing.

Good point about the info too, its hard to know what to believe at the moment

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by scotw

Hell that gets my vote, a few less politicians on the planet can't be a bad thing.

Good point about the info too, its hard to know what to believe at the moment

Indeed, if it's as important as all that it's FAR too important to be a party issue - at the very least all policies should be long term and cross party so we can stop pissing about with the stupid point scoring.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by DaveC

From this we can see that our cars equate to 9% of the UKs output - hmm I dont know about you but a taxation system that targets a 9% sector from which a marginal improvement is the best that can be hoped for seems somewhat nonsensical.

According to 2004 figures band F cars accounted for 28% for all cars registered since 2001 (the ones the bands apply to) and (in 2004) a bottom line of figure of 9% of all registered cars.

DaveC - good point well made, although I actually think these figures may be overstated.

I can accept that cars may cause 9% of the UK's CO2 emissions.

However, I would 'guess' that a VERY low percentage of these have emissions above 225 - when I am cruising the motorways I see very few cars with high emissions - maybe 1 or 2%.

As you very correctly say a 'gaz guzzler' super-penalty on road tax is an ineffective way to reduce CO2 - for several reasons:

1. Even if this successfully forced people to buy lower emission cars it would achieve negligible reductions in CO2 emissions.

2. It's unlikely to work, because those people who CAN afford to run these cars will continue to do so, because they have the money and they are enthusiasts. However, the government that f*cks them over will pay the price at the next election.

3. The focus of the measure is poor. I could drive 30,000 miles a year in a diesel and have a larger carbon footprint than my neighbour who drives 5000 miles a year in an M3, but he is the one who is singled out as the bad guy.

In conclusion, this is not an effective well targeted attempt to reduce our CO2e emissions per capita - it is a bit of 'greenwash' meant purely to generate PR and get the public thinking differently.

[DaveC]

Fully agree with you NFS but couldn't be bothered getting into ever finer detail. If you take into account the kinds of mileage these vehicles are likely to do it just reinforces the point even further.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by dazzapb

thanks the prius is made in Japan and has to be shipped 5000 miles to europe/US, the co2 produced in transportation is equalivent to driving a Mondeo for 20k miles.

Not sure about this figures, but this is an excellent point. There is a lot of very poor thinking out there at the moment around sustainability.

The current government focus on C02 is ALL about carbon emissions in use, be it from buildings, industry or cars and their is almost no consideration for the carbon emissions embodied in the production of these things.

This has led to the current focus on renewable energy. I'm all for renewables, but they are not the quickest way to a net reduction in CO2e emissions. For instance PV cells shipped from China may generate a marginal amount of electricity in this country, but that small benefit may be completely wiped out by the embodied carbon in their manufacture and transportation to this country.

Exactly the same with cars as you correctly point out.

[GarryF]

I think the USA has a better approach, they are introducing a "Gas Guzzler Tax" where new cars have extra taxes added onto list price if they have high co2, so a new M3 is $57 and they might have to pay $3k in GGT tax on top of this, so current owners aren't penalised.

That's a much better system, if the GGT is too high then the car won't sell so the manufacturer makes changes etc until the car sells.

Our current system is all about revenue generation, nothing else

[NFS]

Originally Posted by GarryF

I think the USA has a better approach, they are introducing a "Gas Guzzler Tax" where new cars have extra taxes added onto list price if they have high co2, so a new M3 is $57 and they might have to pay $3k in GGT tax on top of this, so current owners aren't penalised.

That's a much better system, if the GGT is too high then the car won't sell so the manufacturer makes changes etc until the car sells.

Our current system is all about revenue generation, nothing else

It didn't win me much favour amongst my fellow forum members, but this is why I am quite supportive of significant taxation on fuel. This is a much less blunt instrument because it directly targets high emitters. The more CO2 you emit, the more fuel you use, the more tax you pay.

The idea of a super tax for 'gas guzzlers' is much more blunt, even as an addition to the purchase price, rather than VED, it's just a penalty for the more wealthly and in the case of the properly wealthy few, it's going to annoy rather than discourage.

The people targetted are in a small minority and probably vote conservative anyway, so the government will happily p*ss them off to gain a bit of PR with the rest of the population who don't understand the issues properly.

[scotw]

Originally Posted by DaveC

Indeed, if it's as important as all that it's FAR too important to be a party issue - at the very least all policies should be long term and cross party so we can stop pissing about with the stupid point scoring.

+1

[scotw]

The people targetted are in a small minority and probably vote conservative anyway, so the government will happily p*ss them off to gain a bit of PR with the rest of the population who don't understand the issues properly.

I'm not sure thats true anymore. No one minded 4x4's when they were 1% of the cars out there. But now it seems every mother that has to drive more than 10 metres to school feels the need to buy the biggest 4x4 they can and doesn't really stop to think about MPG, CO2 etc.

My friends wife just insisted on a new X5, all to do with keeping up with the jones's. He told me last week that she filled up for the first time and is now thinking of getting rid of it! With people like that around we're all doomed, doomed I tell you !

[beemerbird]

+1

[vivekk]

I've shifted this into 'Off Topic', due to the slightly 'political' nature of this topic.

Viv

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by vivekk

I've shifted this into 'Off Topic', due to the slightly 'political' nature of this topic.

Viv

When I shoot the politicians Viv moderators will go to the wall second

[SoYank]

Even before lawyers? I think you have your priorities a bit skewed there, Dave.

[DaveC]

Oh hell, thats a tough one! No you are right, Lawyers first followed closely by Estate Agents. I'll let Viv live a bit longer.

[Hotcoupe]

Interesting thread.

I have no objection to imposing higher taxes on so called 'gas guzzling' cars as long as the reasons behind the taxes are based on SOUND scientific evidence.
I'm not denying the existence of global warming, which is where this obsession about CO2 emissions is coming from, however, for every so called report on GW that states that the evidence is irrefutable that GW is man caused, there is another report that directly contradicts it.
It seems to me that the Govt is too readily using GW as an excuse for levying more amd more taxes on the population.

It's amazing given the so called concerns about global warming that the Govt has, that they have no concerns whatsoever about expansion at Heathrow Airport, and plans for extra runways at both Gatwick and Stanstead

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Hotcoupe

Interesting thread.

I have no objection to imposing higher taxes on so called 'gas guzzling' cars as long as the reasons behind the taxes are based on SOUND scientific evidence.
I'm not denying the existence of global warming, which is where this obsession about CO2 emissions is coming from, however, for every so called report on GW that states that the evidence is irrefutable that GW is man caused, there is another report that directly contradicts it.
It seems to me that the Govt is too readily using GW as an excuse for levying more amd more taxes on the population.

Actually I think the contradictory ones get 10000 times the publicity since that's what we all want to believe. There is a pretty overwhelming concensus on the issue.

It's amazing given the so called concerns about global warming that the Govt has, that they have no concerns whatsoever about expansion at Heathrow Airport, and plans for extra runways at both Gatwick and Stanstead

Why does this surprise you? Its "do as I say not as I do" in a nutshell.

[vivekk]

Originally Posted by DaveC

Oh hell, thats a tough one! No you are right, Lawyers first followed closely by Estate Agents. I'll let Viv live a bit longer.

Thanks Dave.

Viv

[dazzapb]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Not sure about this figures, but this is an excellent point. There is a lot of very poor thinking out there at the moment around sustainability.

The current government focus on C02 is ALL about carbon emissions in use, be it from buildings, industry or cars and their is almost no consideration for the carbon emissions embodied in the production of these things.

This has led to the current focus on renewable energy. I'm all for renewables, but they are not the quickest way to a net reduction in CO2e emissions. For instance PV cells shipped from China may generate a marginal amount of electricity in this country, but that small benefit may be completely wiped out by the embodied carbon in their manufacture and transportation to this country.

Exactly the same with cars as you correctly point out.

thanks NFS, yeah I was recalling the figure from my biased pro-car mind will have to dig out the mag and double check the figures

[SDRX]

We have a government hellbent on criminalizing and taxing motorists. The latter is now masquerading as some coordinated effort to safe the environment. That itself is a pointless exercise because our global carbon output is miniscule and states like India and China are increasing their carbon footprints.

Motorists and taxpayers in general are easy targets for the incumbent government to raise revenue. There is a massive emerging blackhole in the budget and we can expect some new tricks (tax rises) in the forthcoming budget.